Unless you're watching a documentary or live, breaking news, the big media outlets aren't "primary authorities" on anything--the evening news contains summaries, analysis, and opinion about the day's events, but this broadcast isn't itself the news that it covers. The 'news' is all meta, not primary. Oftentimes the nightly news and big daily newspapers are no more credible (and often quite a bit less so) than the coterie of blogs or other alternative news sources out there.
My point is this: who does the public turn to? In today's world there are lots of choices in the marketplace for both mainstream and alternative sources of news. If misrepresentations are flagrant and damaging enough, the courts in some cases will be open to those injured by libel. I certainly don't trust government regulators more than I trust my own instinct to think critically about what the talking heads on TV tell me. Certainly if we can't count on at least a basic level of critical thinking by our citizenry then the problem here is probably to be found in our educational system and not in our broadcasters. Not to mention that it's quite unlikely that our Constitution trusts government regulators in this day and age to decide what is and is not appropriate to be broadcast or printed as 'news.'
While the media has clearly been irresponsible in recent years and all-too accommodating for the abuses of power with which the country must now grapple, I tend to doubt that the reinstatement of the fairness doctrine would be either constitutional or even a good idea.
The constitutionality of the 'fairness doctrine' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) on the basis that the FCC content-based regulation of broadcast television programming was appropriate in light of scarce broadcast resources and its mandate to act in the public interest for limited broadcast airwave frequencies. In other words, with only so many frequencies to dole out, it made sense at the time for the FCC to have some role in ensuring that a diverse array of viewpoints had access to broadcasting.
In this day and age, where over-the-airwaves broadcast TV is mandated to be replaced by digital TV receivers (where interference and broadcast scarcity are much less of an issue) quite soon, and where cable, satellite, and the Internet have opened up innumerable avenues for mass and niche media and communication, the rationale for Red Lion just totally falls apart. This was essentially the rationale of the FCC in the 1980s when it did away with the fairness doctrine for precisely the reason that it felt it was no longer justified in light of the then-contemporary media environment (an environment that has only become more numerous and fragmented than it was then, and certainly compared to the days where all there was were the 'big three' networks).
Plus, do we really want FCC bureaucrats editing TV programming for political content? That just seems like a system ripe for abuse.
IANAL (though I very recently passed the bar exam and so I'm very close to being one...)
classic comments there. some choice ones: "OMG, it's a CPU not a sandwich!" "That's not a f-ing sundae!!"
This review tempts me to no end. I'd need to try out that weird-looking keyboard. (The powerbook g4s have great keyboards and I type a lot, so the keyboard is, um, 'key.')
But I can't stand the tacky glossy screen--I don't need Toys 'R Us colors from the screen! Give me matte or give me, um, nevermind.
Let's take a closer look at this breathless summary:
Nielsen will also move to measure viewing that takes place via iPods, cellular/cell phones, laptops, and other digital devices that are gaining TV privileges. The company also will track audiences for on-demand fare. The steps are a radical change for Nielsen, reflecting an overall paradigm shift that's shaking up the television world. The audience is taking control. And TV companies are scrambling to catch up.
If by "taking control" you mean "getting permission" then the only 'catching-up' going on here is in how quickly content-owners can implement acceptable (to them) access controls for the proliferation and fragmentation of potential TV-viewing media.
why was the evacuation order given only 24 hours in advance? why aren't there airlifts of food and water to people literally starving and dying of thirst? why did Bush wait two days to curtail his cozy vacation to respond to the crisis? why weren't buses used before the storm to bus out those without cars, the elderly, and the sick? why are the police looting and deserting their posts?
government has a role and a government that can't protect its citizens on basic issues of physical security and competence in the face of disaster is a government that doesn't deserve the consent of the governed.
...were so diligent. Seriously, the madness and 'Lord of the Flies' atmosphere that has taken place in my home city of New Orleans with no food, no water, no communication, and no signs of help are heartbreaking and a true tragedy. The loss is immense and our government has failed us--this is the United States and we needed to do better for our own.
Actually, the question was about the interpretation of the 21st amendment to the Constitution, which repealed the 18th amendment and thereby ended Prohibition.
Section 2 of the 21 amendment allows states to regulate the interstate commerce of wine to some extent (the extent of which was at issue today):
2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
The question then is not whether states can regulate the importation of wine, but the extent of the states' power to declare which importation is "in violation of the laws thereof." The Supreme Court held today that this was intended to reflect the intent of the framers of this amendment that the normal dormant commerce clause analysis was to apply, that is, states can't discriminate against the products of other states but may generally regulate interstate commerce if done without discrimination and for a valid purpose (here, provided by the 21st amendment itself).
I've heard this argument before, but it doesn't hold much water. It's true that the original 1888 s.ct. opinion didn't include the 'corporations are legal persons' in the text of the opinion, but the court accepted the proposition in oral arguments (as reflected by the court reporter's syllabus of the case) and it has been accepted by many courts since then such that it is now stare decisis.
Actually, corporations are legal persons and as such have some of the same independent rights that people ('natural persons') have. Corporations are protected against federal regulation that isn't allowed under the Commerce Clause. Corporations also have Due Process protections against Takings (ie. deprivation of certain property rights), and have some Equal Protection protections as well (they are treated equally as any other 'party' in a lawsuit, for example). They also have some First Amendment rights (commercial advertising has speech value that the government cannot arbitrarily regulate).
IINAL, but I am a law student.
btw--the FCC rulemaking authority over this kind of market activity certainly derives at least from Congress' power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Might be a dumb decision, but, I doubt it's illegal. (There might be some antitrust issues if the DSL companies overreach, but since these telcos are usually regulated monopolies anyway, I doubt the antitrust rules apply in the usual way.)
That $3000 figure for the cost of the batteries is also a bit misleading--TFA took some effort to point out that the cost of both the batteries and the hybrid engine declines rapidly with mass production. If the car companies and consumers got behind this technology it could become quite affordable
The relative lack of innovation in car power plant and energy technology over the last 100 years is really a dark spot on the auto industry IMHO--that we're still burning that much fossil fuel to get individuals from point A to point B, with consequences to our health and national security increasing with each barrel of oil we import, shows how skewed our priorities have been as a nation and world. A little money and foresight decades ago could have made today's world much better. And some money and effort today can make tomorrow's world more sustainable as well, let's not forget that.
Why not? Either as you're roving there's free wife, or there's not. The fact that it's not the same everywhere realistically doesn't burden you at all.
Different and creative approaches to different goods and needs is what a federalist, representative republic is all about.
""The way business works here is simple," says David J. Farber. "In America, if you have a potential product, you do research, you try to figure out the size of the potential market. And if it's a totally new, totally innovative thing, where no one has any idea of the size of the market, and there's no guaranteed return on a large investment, well, forget it. No American company will touch it. In Japan, it's usually quite the opposite: manufacturers know that the home market loves new stuff; they'll take risks there, hoping that something will catch fire and take off. The only U.S. company that's doing that is Apple, and, honestly, I don't think that even Steve Jobs, in all of his infinite wisdom, thought that the iPod was going to take off the way it has.""
how about that? who knew that I, with my ibook/ipod toting ways, was such a technological zeitgeist?
The US Civil War shifted more power to the federal government; contrary to popular opinion, it wasn't just about slavery. Yet the laws and the Constitution did not change. The years since the Civil War have shown an increasing level of power grabs from the federal government.
Except that the laws and the Constitution did change: as a condition for re-entry into the Union after the Civil War, the southern states were required to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution. The 14th amendment in particular starts with the some of the most important language directed at states (rather than the federal govt.):
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Before this was added to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments were thought to apply only to the federal government and not to the states. Since then, this amendment has been the primary impetus for 'incorporating' the other amendments so as to apply to the states.
although an administrative agency ruling like this carries a lot of weight, Lexmark is free to ask the federal courts to review this issue, and federal courts may well take a different view. Of course, courts typically defer to administrative agency interpretations, they don't always do so, particularly where they find that Congress clearly intended a different result.
I read Supreme Court opinions for a living. The Court doesn't just have the right knowhow, but also a Constitutional mandate to do what they do: i.e, interpret the laws and constitution (see Article III of the U.S. Constitution and Marbury v. Madison if you're confused). There would be no law if there weren't courts and judges to "say what the law is." This is why 'open source law' makes no since, because the average joe doesn't have institutional legitimacy to be taken seriously when tinkering with legal code. Hackers have knowhow, but they lack this institutional mandate.
"Activist Judiciary" is a knee-jerk term for people who don't know what they're talking about. Usually, it's a term used by partisans when they disfavor what the Court is doing. Unless you can explain yourself further, your statement is without meaning.
"open source" laws
on
Open Source Law
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
it makes little sense to refer to any law as 'open source.' Laws aren't like open source computer code that can be tinkered with by anybody with the proper knowhow. Laws are altered by a constitutionally defined procedure by the various branches of our government.
A much better term would be that these laws enter the public domain.
The decision was 6-3. It's rather confusing, however. The majority opinion was joined by four justices (Rehnquist,, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas). Two justices wrote opinions concurring in the judgment (Kennedy, Breyer). This means that they agree with the decision, but for different reasons. Three justices dissented (Stevens wrote his own, and Souter wrote another in which Ginsberg joined).
It should make us nervous whenever companies of this size adopt a cooperative, rather than a competitive, stance towards each other. Why was this case really settled? Probably because they both were able to agree to cooperate in the future on new DRM.
Caveat Emptor!
The cave allegory has as much to do with those who remain in the cave as it does with those who get out. From my reading, it's an allegory about education, social structures and leadership (it's no wonder the cave allegory came from 'The Republic', because the book deals with Plato's discussions on political society). In The Matrix, humans who have not been awakened as to their true environment are much like those stuck in the cave--ignorant (but perhaps happily so) as to their surroundings, content to watch shadows play on a cave wall. Those who make it out of the cave, and those who are Plato's philosopher-kings, are surely supposed to remind us of Neo et. al. who have 'seen the light.'
Re:Why do "next gen" OSs have such GIANT interface
on
Looking at Longhorn
·
· Score: 1
I can understand why there is some increase in interface size, particularly as monitor resolution and size increases.
What I don't understand is this: WHY IS WINDOWS LONGHORN SO UGLY?? All that blue gives me a headache and I can't make heads or tails of the UI.
I don't work for motorolla so I don't know what went into their marketing decision (though I'll note again that motorolla rates them as 1.4Ghz chips, which might just be rounding down). I'd guess that there is a rather large cooling solution in the towers because there are TWO CHIPS to cool.
Slashdot Mirror
(IAALBTINLA--I am a lawyer but this is not legal advice)
More than this--anonymous speech is enshrined in our very constitutional framework: see generally The Federalist Papers.
My point is this: who does the public turn to? In today's world there are lots of choices in the marketplace for both mainstream and alternative sources of news. If misrepresentations are flagrant and damaging enough, the courts in some cases will be open to those injured by libel. I certainly don't trust government regulators more than I trust my own instinct to think critically about what the talking heads on TV tell me. Certainly if we can't count on at least a basic level of critical thinking by our citizenry then the problem here is probably to be found in our educational system and not in our broadcasters. Not to mention that it's quite unlikely that our Constitution trusts government regulators in this day and age to decide what is and is not appropriate to be broadcast or printed as 'news.'
The constitutionality of the 'fairness doctrine' was upheld by the Supreme Court in the case Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) on the basis that the FCC content-based regulation of broadcast television programming was appropriate in light of scarce broadcast resources and its mandate to act in the public interest for limited broadcast airwave frequencies. In other words, with only so many frequencies to dole out, it made sense at the time for the FCC to have some role in ensuring that a diverse array of viewpoints had access to broadcasting.
In this day and age, where over-the-airwaves broadcast TV is mandated to be replaced by digital TV receivers (where interference and broadcast scarcity are much less of an issue) quite soon, and where cable, satellite, and the Internet have opened up innumerable avenues for mass and niche media and communication, the rationale for Red Lion just totally falls apart. This was essentially the rationale of the FCC in the 1980s when it did away with the fairness doctrine for precisely the reason that it felt it was no longer justified in light of the then-contemporary media environment (an environment that has only become more numerous and fragmented than it was then, and certainly compared to the days where all there was were the 'big three' networks).
Plus, do we really want FCC bureaucrats editing TV programming for political content? That just seems like a system ripe for abuse.
IANAL (though I very recently passed the bar exam and so I'm very close to being one...)
classic comments there. some choice ones:
"OMG, it's a CPU not a sandwich!"
"That's not a f-ing sundae!!"
This review tempts me to no end. I'd need to try out that weird-looking keyboard. (The powerbook g4s have great keyboards and I type a lot, so the keyboard is, um, 'key.')
But I can't stand the tacky glossy screen--I don't need Toys 'R Us colors from the screen! Give me matte or give me, um, nevermind.
Maybe the NOLA Police should also withdraw their civil protection of Bell South HQ in the city.
If by "taking control" you mean "getting permission" then the only 'catching-up' going on here is in how quickly content-owners can implement acceptable (to them) access controls for the proliferation and fragmentation of potential TV-viewing media.
why was the evacuation order given only 24 hours in advance? why aren't there airlifts of food and water to people literally starving and dying of thirst? why did Bush wait two days to curtail his cozy vacation to respond to the crisis? why weren't buses used before the storm to bus out those without cars, the elderly, and the sick? why are the police looting and deserting their posts?
government has a role and a government that can't protect its citizens on basic issues of physical security and competence in the face of disaster is a government that doesn't deserve the consent of the governed.
...were so diligent. Seriously, the madness and 'Lord of the Flies' atmosphere that has taken place in my home city of New Orleans with no food, no water, no communication, and no signs of help are heartbreaking and a true tragedy. The loss is immense and our government has failed us--this is the United States and we needed to do better for our own.
Section 2 of the 21 amendment allows states to regulate the interstate commerce of wine to some extent (the extent of which was at issue today):
The question then is not whether states can regulate the importation of wine, but the extent of the states' power to declare which importation is "in violation of the laws thereof." The Supreme Court held today that this was intended to reflect the intent of the framers of this amendment that the normal dormant commerce clause analysis was to apply, that is, states can't discriminate against the products of other states but may generally regulate interstate commerce if done without discrimination and for a valid purpose (here, provided by the 21st amendment itself).
IAAL.
I've heard this argument before, but it doesn't hold much water. It's true that the original 1888 s.ct. opinion didn't include the 'corporations are legal persons' in the text of the opinion, but the court accepted the proposition in oral arguments (as reflected by the court reporter's syllabus of the case) and it has been accepted by many courts since then such that it is now stare decisis.
Actually, corporations are legal persons and as such have some of the same independent rights that people ('natural persons') have. Corporations are protected against federal regulation that isn't allowed under the Commerce Clause. Corporations also have Due Process protections against Takings (ie. deprivation of certain property rights), and have some Equal Protection protections as well (they are treated equally as any other 'party' in a lawsuit, for example). They also have some First Amendment rights (commercial advertising has speech value that the government cannot arbitrarily regulate).
IINAL, but I am a law student.
btw--the FCC rulemaking authority over this kind of market activity certainly derives at least from Congress' power to regulate Interstate Commerce. Might be a dumb decision, but, I doubt it's illegal. (There might be some antitrust issues if the DSL companies overreach, but since these telcos are usually regulated monopolies anyway, I doubt the antitrust rules apply in the usual way.)
That $3000 figure for the cost of the batteries is also a bit misleading--TFA took some effort to point out that the cost of both the batteries and the hybrid engine declines rapidly with mass production. If the car companies and consumers got behind this technology it could become quite affordable
The relative lack of innovation in car power plant and energy technology over the last 100 years is really a dark spot on the auto industry IMHO--that we're still burning that much fossil fuel to get individuals from point A to point B, with consequences to our health and national security increasing with each barrel of oil we import, shows how skewed our priorities have been as a nation and world. A little money and foresight decades ago could have made today's world much better. And some money and effort today can make tomorrow's world more sustainable as well, let's not forget that.
Why not? Either as you're roving there's free wife, or there's not. The fact that it's not the same everywhere realistically doesn't burden you at all.
Different and creative approaches to different goods and needs is what a federalist, representative republic is all about.
money quote:
""The way business works here is simple," says David J. Farber. "In America, if you have a potential product, you do research, you try to figure out the size of the potential market. And if it's a totally new, totally innovative thing, where no one has any idea of the size of the market, and there's no guaranteed return on a large investment, well, forget it. No American company will touch it. In Japan, it's usually quite the opposite: manufacturers know that the home market loves new stuff; they'll take risks there, hoping that something will catch fire and take off. The only U.S. company that's doing that is Apple, and, honestly, I don't think that even Steve Jobs, in all of his infinite wisdom, thought that the iPod was going to take off the way it has.""
how about that? who knew that I, with my ibook/ipod toting ways, was such a technological zeitgeist?
Except that the laws and the Constitution did change: as a condition for re-entry into the Union after the Civil War, the southern states were required to ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the constitution. The 14th amendment in particular starts with the some of the most important language directed at states (rather than the federal govt.):
Before this was added to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and other amendments were thought to apply only to the federal government and not to the states. Since then, this amendment has been the primary impetus for 'incorporating' the other amendments so as to apply to the states.(IANAL, but I will be soon! ; ) )
although an administrative agency ruling like this carries a lot of weight, Lexmark is free to ask the federal courts to review this issue, and federal courts may well take a different view. Of course, courts typically defer to administrative agency interpretations, they don't always do so, particularly where they find that Congress clearly intended a different result.
I read Supreme Court opinions for a living. The Court doesn't just have the right knowhow, but also a Constitutional mandate to do what they do: i.e, interpret the laws and constitution (see Article III of the U.S. Constitution and Marbury v. Madison if you're confused). There would be no law if there weren't courts and judges to "say what the law is." This is why 'open source law' makes no since, because the average joe doesn't have institutional legitimacy to be taken seriously when tinkering with legal code. Hackers have knowhow, but they lack this institutional mandate.
"Activist Judiciary" is a knee-jerk term for people who don't know what they're talking about. Usually, it's a term used by partisans when they disfavor what the Court is doing. Unless you can explain yourself further, your statement is without meaning.
it makes little sense to refer to any law as 'open source.' Laws aren't like open source computer code that can be tinkered with by anybody with the proper knowhow. Laws are altered by a constitutionally defined procedure by the various branches of our government.
A much better term would be that these laws enter the public domain.
You're right. I should have been more careful. The opinion Rehnquist wrote was only a plurality opinion.
The decision was 6-3. It's rather confusing, however. The majority opinion was joined by four justices (Rehnquist,, O'Connor, Scalia, Thomas). Two justices wrote opinions concurring in the judgment (Kennedy, Breyer). This means that they agree with the decision, but for different reasons. Three justices dissented (Stevens wrote his own, and Souter wrote another in which Ginsberg joined).
Get it?
or you could just type ">console" at the login screen and save yourself from futzing with loginwindow.app.
It should make us nervous whenever companies of this size adopt a cooperative, rather than a competitive, stance towards each other. Why was this case really settled? Probably because they both were able to agree to cooperate in the future on new DRM. Caveat Emptor!
The cave allegory has as much to do with those who remain in the cave as it does with those who get out. From my reading, it's an allegory about education, social structures and leadership (it's no wonder the cave allegory came from 'The Republic', because the book deals with Plato's discussions on political society). In The Matrix, humans who have not been awakened as to their true environment are much like those stuck in the cave--ignorant (but perhaps happily so) as to their surroundings, content to watch shadows play on a cave wall. Those who make it out of the cave, and those who are Plato's philosopher-kings, are surely supposed to remind us of Neo et. al. who have 'seen the light.'
I can understand why there is some increase in interface size, particularly as monitor resolution and size increases.
What I don't understand is this: WHY IS WINDOWS LONGHORN SO UGLY?? All that blue gives me a headache and I can't make heads or tails of the UI.
I don't work for motorolla so I don't know what went into their marketing decision (though I'll note again that motorolla rates them as 1.4Ghz chips, which might just be rounding down). I'd guess that there is a rather large cooling solution in the towers because there are TWO CHIPS to cool.